Debates of June 14th, 2018

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline Agency

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to help my colleague with his research. If he would like information about how each amount is spent, he can consult the website or use Google. All he has to do is search for the following phrase:

“Treasury Board Canada budget implementation vote 2018”, and as such, he will have monthly updates on how the funding has been allocated and how much is remaining. In fact, he does not have to wait until the fall of 2019, although I suspect that after the election, in the fall of 2019, he will continue to have a fair bit of time on his hands to do this kind of research from one of those seats over there. However, I appreciate very much his optimism and professionalism in this House.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because I have just a few seconds, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comments and the quality of his French.

As far as we are concerned, the $7.4 billion is not well developed, and we are not aware of what the government will do.

If I may say this to my estimates colleague, he should be careful when he talks about Google. I think the government is a bit too involved with that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to the main estimates, and of course, the important vote tonight. I think this is one of the most important debates we have in this House. We are talking about spending a lot of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars.

There are many good things the federal government can do for Canadians, but we need to be very particular about how we authorize and how we look at the government's plans for spending money, because every penny has come from citizens who work hard. When they give money to the government, it means that it is perhaps a hockey lesson their child cannot do. It is something they are foregoing with that money going to the government. I think as we have this debate tonight, that should be very clear.

Perhaps, by the end of the points I make, anyone who might be watching this debate is going to realize that the government is betraying its commitment to transparency and accountability. I am going to give a few examples of how that has happened. They have taken what was an imperfect system and made it a whole lot worse than it was.

First of all, I want to talk a little bit about the normal process at committee and how the government has degraded that normal process that used to happen, and then I will talk about the infamous vote 40.

It used to be that for the main estimates, the minister would come to committee. We would usually have an hour with the minister and an hour with the officials to talk to them about their spending and their spending plans. I am going to use the indigenous affairs portfolio as an example.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, as members know, has been split into two parts. What happened this year was that the government decided it would have one minister for one hour and the other minister for the other hour. It was quite interesting. We would have liked to have that televised, because it was important. We heard that there were ministers at many committees. There were four committees that had ministers for a two-hour session on that particular day.

What happened was that there were votes, so in our first hour, we actually had 30 minutes of time to talk to the minister and her departmental officials, and then there was another vote, and we only had 30 minutes for the second minister. What that meant, in reality, was that once the minister had given her 10-minute presentation, the official opposition had a grand total of seven minutes to question the minister on her spending plans. We had seven minutes for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and seven minutes for the Minister of Indigenous Services.

What does that mean? We had seven minutes to talk to the minister about Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, which has not been separated yet. We had seven minutes to talk about $3 billion for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and seven minutes to talk to the Minister of Indigenous Services about $9.3 billion.

How can the official opposition do an effective job when the government does not even have the courtesy of looking at what is happening and planning its votes and its need for adjournment and stopping debate? The Liberals plan them for times when they know that committees are meeting and ministers are there. They are eroding accountability. That is a significant concern, because to be quite frank, seven minutes is absolutely nothing for spending of almost $10 billion.

Of course, that does not include talking about the $1 billon that is in this very elusive vote 40. The President of the Treasury Board has stated that he is going to align the budget so that we have more information.

Let me tell colleagues what people have said about vote 40. We had seven minutes to talk about $9 billion. We had seven minutes to ask questions of the minister about $3 billion, and we really do not know what is happening with that $1 billion. The member is trying to proclaim that this is better for Parliament and good news to know that we are going to authorize spending.

Let me get into what a few people have said.

As an article written in The Hill Times reported, “If the $7-billion central vote passes with the main estimates on Thursday, former PBO Kevin Page says it represents 'a new low' for Parliament's financial oversight system.”

We have already talked about having a challenge in terms of proper oversight, and now we have a new system that further erodes that. I would like to give credit to the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He said, “something irregular and abnormal [is] happening here in terms of the way the government is asking to approve spending”. That is pretty significant.

I will go back to the former parliamentary budget officer, because the Liberals certainly liked him in the past. In the last Parliament, they talked about the important work he did.

Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling on whether there was a legitimate process for the $7-billion slush fund.

The article continues that former parliamentary budget officer said by email that he respectfully disagreed with the ruling:

“Not all central funds are the same,” he said, noting the government proposes that this central fund asks Parliament to approve “new appropriations” in the latest budget. “This is a very bad precedent for Parliament.”

“Financial control and ministerial accountability are being undermined. This is a new low for our appropriation system,” he said.

“How can the Parliament hold the President of the Treasury Board...responsible and accountable for all authorities requested in the latest budget?” he asked, for money allocated for Indigenous people, veterans, and more.

Despite a 2015 campaign promise of estimates reform, Mr. Page said we are left with “the false pretence of reconciliation at great cost to accountability.”

I listened very carefully to the speech from the President of the Treasury Board, and he certainly cherry-picked positive comments.

The article continues,

...a Parliamentary Budget Office report last month suggested the approach is “somewhat novel,” because it asks Parliament to provide funding before it goes through the Treasury Board submission process, which scrutinizes intended...spending.

I was not there, but I understand that during a meeting of the government operations and estimates committee, which is tasked with some of this important work, the Liberals walked out. They would not participate in the debate. This is what they chose to do instead of talking about the new system and the estimates. In the time I have been in Parliament, I have never seen that from the representatives of the government on a committee. The Liberal members on that committee walked out. They did not come back to committee, and then, of course, the estimates were deemed considered. If this is the government's commitment to transparency, accountability, and dialogue, it is really quite shameful.

We have heard significant concerns. I could go on with quote after quote. As the article said, a Conservative senator from Newfoundland and Labrador in that other place “accused the government of promising an Australian model but offering nothing like it”. She said, “I feel like we’ve been led down the garden path”.

We have a system that has always been a challenge. The are significant dollars. These are important dollars. These are taxpayers' dollars. The government is spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars, and it is eroding the system and doing the exact opposite of increasing accountability and transparency. Tonight we should stand up and make that point very clearly.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain members are familiar with the well-known saying that a person is known by the company they keep.

I would like to know if my hon. colleague agrees with Ian Brodie, ex-chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, who said that he welcomed these changes and believed they were on the right track.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the Liberals, who so appreciated both the former PBO and the current PBO in the last Parliament, did not listen to what they said. To be quite frank, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is intimately knowledgeable about the machinations of government, and especially Treasury Board. Therefore, I certainly would view their comments with a great deal of alarm. Again, both the current PBO and the past PBO raised a red flag, and the Liberals should be listening to that red flag.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for having put some of the remarks of Kevin Page from a recent Hill Times article on the record. I think he has a lot of credibility. He was cited as an authority by the President of the Treasury Board, and I think his remarks with respect to overturning an important principle of parliamentary accountability are quite true, and I am so glad to have them on the record.

I wonder if the member wanted to elaborate a bit more on what it means to try and hold a government to account, and whether it makes sense, on that notion of accountability, that we could do that if we do not have the information as to how the government is planning to spend the money until after the money is already spent, and what that means in terms of the idea of holding people to account.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Elmwood—Transcona speaks to the issue perfectly. It already is a challenge for the opposition to hold government to account. When the government creates these sorts of changes where we do not even have a proper and due process, it is even more critical.

I want to highlight the recent Auditor General's comments, where he said that the government seems to be measuring its success by the dollars it spends. One of the opportunities that we have when we bring ministers to committee is to say, “You say you are going to spend $7 billion. Can you talk about how that program is making a difference?” When the Liberals erode that down to seven minutes, because they want to violate our opportunities for debate in this House by bringing closure on bills or adjournments, it not only creates challenges but compounds the challenges.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening closely to my colleagues for some time now. I would have liked to ask my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent a question when he spoke earlier, but I will instead ask my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

This evening, we will have debates, followed by votes. These votes will be on matters such as public transportation and the Canada Infrastructure Bank, with its more than $180-billion infrastructure plan. I get the impression that my colleagues will be voting against this measure.

How will my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent explain his decision to deny funding to the Quebec City tramway and to public transportation? I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we will be voting against is the creation of a process that has allowed for such limited scrutiny. The Liberals will be asking us to vote for a slush fund that is worth over $7 billion tonight. How can we, as parliamentarians, and the backbenchers as well, vote in good conscience for something that we know there are no proper checks and balances around? I would suggest that maybe some of the Liberal backbenchers should look at these issues and perhaps think very carefully about what they are voting for.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally rise to address the issue of these main estimates. This debate on the main estimates is very different than we have in the past because there is a new mechanism for how the government is seeking to appropriate all of the money that it says it requires for its new budget initiatives. As members in this place will know, I have tried, in a number of ways, to have a debate in the House on this, so I very pleased that we are finally getting an opportunity, if only briefly, to discuss this.

I made a request of the President of the Treasury Board to have a take-note debate on this, I made a request of you, Mr. Speaker, that we have an emergency debate on this, I raised it in a number of different ways at committee, and, yes, I have been frustrated. There was some allusion made already to what debate at committee looked like. There was one meeting where the committee adjourned with 40 minutes left on the clock in our scheduled time because government members saw fit to adjourn the committee rather than stick around to do our duty and study the main estimates. On another occasion, Liberals left the meeting en masse so there was no quorum and the meeting collapsed. The chair made arrangements for us to go back and continue the study of the estimates, but when the time came to resume that study, all six Liberal members did not show up and the meeting could not continue.

Although the estimates on Treasury Board have been reported back to the House, it is important to note that they were deemed reported back and not, in fact, approved by the committee. While I know that from a procedural point of view that makes no difference in the House, from a moral point of view, it makes an important difference, because the fact of the matter is that the new mechanism was not approved by the committee but simply deemed approved. Therefore, it is important that we now address that issue.

I will direct some of my remarks directly to what the President of the Treasury Board said tonight in this debate. He talked about the fact that the estimates process has not been a perfect process. I do not think any members here would disagree. We know that it was dysfunctional to have estimates tabled only days after the budget was presented in the House and to not have any new budget initiatives reflected in the estimates. That is why New Democrats, as a party, were quite open to the idea that we would delay the tabling of the main estimates on a trial basis in order to give the government more time to do its due diligence and move new budget initiatives through the Treasury Board process so that the rigorous costing was done, so that the program planning was done, and so that government would be able to answer questions about how it proposes to spend the money allocated for new budget initiatives.

In fact, that is not what happened. Instead, the government decided to create a new central vote, heretofore unprecedented, and dump all of the proposed spending into the one vote. That had a number of important consequences for the study of the estimates. For one, it kind of broke the committee study process, because instead of having those new budget initiatives that under the old system would have, in time, gone to the subject expert committees, all of those things went to one committee, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which is not an expert on the environment, health, or defence, and yet it was being asked to evaluate the new spending proposals in the government's budget. Therefore, that was not particularly good from a study point of view.

It also undermined the process because we were being referred to a document, namely, the budget, which is outside the usual estimates process, in order to get information about that spending. However, the budget document is, by its nature, vague and the vagueness of the budget may be frustrating from time to time, but it is not inappropriate. It is a policy document in which the government lays out its high-level goals and throws some figures in. They are not the real figures or the end figures, those come in the estimates, but that is why there are two different processes. The government has been kind of conflating those processes and, in the end, diluting the importance and accuracy of the estimates. Therefore, there was a problem in the way these estimates were going to be studied, but also in terms of referring us to less detailed documents.

We saw, time and time again, with department officials who came to committee, that they do not have a plan. We even saw some of them were just genuinely confused. They did not understand how this new system worked and how it was they were supposed to be getting money that was not reflected in their main departmental estimates. That confusion was apparent at committee when the Liberals, as a kind of Hail Mary pass, decided to have an omnibus study meeting on the last day before the estimates would be deemed back to the House, where they invited officials from a dozen different departments to present within an hour or so.

Earlier, an honourable member talked about how frustrating it is to only get seven minutes with a minister on the entire department. Well, imagine getting 14 minutes with 12 departments. Do the math on that and it is about a minute per department for all of the new budget spending. That is only because not all the departments were even represented. I do not think that meeting met the threshold of rigorous scrutiny that people would expect.

There have been a number of procedural problems because this vote does not fit our normal processes, and so parliamentarians have been trying to work that out as best they can at committee. Of course, the real solution would be not to have a vote like this at all.

I started by saying that we were in a position where there was a problem with the process. We were open to the idea of allowing a later tabling of the estimates so the government could do the rigorous costing and get it through Treasury Board so officials could actually answer questions about what the proposed spending was. Instead, what we were given was a mechanism where there is a nice table that aligns with what is in the budget, but we cannot actually do our work as parliamentarians to hold the government to account and see if it has a decent plan for how it is going to spend that money.

This is where I want to get to some of the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board, because I think that by an intellectual sleight of hand he is missing the point. The point was never just to have the kind of soft budgeting numbers from the budget document reflected in the estimates. The idea was that we would get the harder, more rigorous numbers developed through the Treasury Board process in the estimates for the new budget initiative so parliamentarians could actually do their due diligence in the main estimates that represented the budget.

Instead, we have been asked to trade off information that aligns better between the two documents against our actual powers of oversight and accountability with government. That is not just my analysis, that is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said with respect to the budget implementation vote as well. It was very clear there was a trade-off here, and on the other side of that trade-off was a sacrifice of parliamentary accountability.

What we have heard consistently from the minister and his officials at committee is that somehow parliamentarians are supposed to be satisfied that they can hold the government to account and perform their oversight function if they get the information after the money is spent. They somehow think accountability works by giving a blanket approval to, in this case, over $7 billion worth of funding, and then getting a note posted online after about how the government spent the money. If that money is not well spent, the fact is there is no way to take it back. Canadians do not get that money back. That is why they send us here to do our due diligence and make sure the government has a realistic plan before authority is given for that spending.

That is the important principle being undermined here, and one that has not been addressed in the arguments of the President of the Treasury Board. I wish he would explain how it is he thinks that is an acceptable model. That was the basis of the question I posed to him earlier this evening that he did not answer. I do not see how he could accept this notion of retroactive accountability as the basis for the Treasury Board's own work.

The Treasury Board has an important accountability function within government. Its job is to challenge departments and make sure that their business plan, or whatever we want to call it, or their strategic plan for new government initiatives make sense, that they have done their due diligence, have done appropriate costing, and have considered different ways of running a program. I find it very hard to believe that the President of the Treasury Board would find it acceptable if departments came to the Treasury Board and said that instead of having it ask them all these obnoxious questions, because they are not really sure what they are going to do yet, to stop badgering them if they agree with the goals about how they are going to get it done.

Suppose department officials could say they were going to go away and figure it out, and that the President of the Treasury Board did not have to tell them how to do it, because they knew how to do their job. When they were finished and had signed the contracts and paid the money, then they would post online what they did, and the officials at Treasury Board could look it up. If they did not like it they could call the departments and talk about it, and that would be Treasury Board holding them to account.

It is laughable. I certainly hope Treasury Board would not accept that model for itself. The idea that Treasury Board officials think that parliamentarians should accept that notion of accountability for Parliament and that Parliament should understand its accountability function for government in that way is an insult to this place. It makes perfect sense that parliamentarians would be able to ask questions of government departments in terms of what they are going to do with money.

As an example, in these estimates there is approximately $54 million under Treasury Board vote 40, or the budget implementation vote, for the Canada Border Services Agency, to strengthen the border and to help the CBSA. There are a lot of ways. We have had debates in this House about the border. Different people have different ideas about what ought to be done on the border. They cannot tell me it does not matter to parliamentarians whether the government ultimately uses that money to hire more CBSA staff, to buy guns, or to build a wall. Those are three ways to strengthen the border on some interpretations. Obviously, some are better than others.

The idea that it would not matter to parliamentarians which of those three roads the government was planning to take is ridiculous. However, we have heard from Treasury Board officials at committee that it is not the business of parliamentarians to plan programs and to wonder how the money exactly is going to be spent, that parliamentarians should be satisfied with high-level—read “vacuous”—goal statements like “Strengthening the Canada Border Services Agency”. We cannot approve money on that basis alone and Parliament has already recognized that.

That is why we have had a rigorous process, not a perfect process by any means but a process that at least in principle allowed parliamentarians to interrogate ministers about the plans for the departments and particular line items in the budget to know how they were planning to spend that money. That is not some cute principle. It is essential in order for parliamentarians to be able to do their jobs. I have found it astonishing that the Treasury Board, who recognizes that in its own work, and ought to, does not see that Parliament requires information as well, in order to be able to be said to be an accountable body.

There is a need for accountability. That is something certainly that the Liberals recognized in the last campaign.

Let us take a recent example of the Phoenix pay system where the Auditor General has called it an “incomprehensible failure”, because at various stages in the process people were not asking the right questions, or they were accepting answers that needed to be challenged and those answers were not being challenged. The fact of the matter is that for an organization as large as the Government of Canada, if it is going to have proper accountability for spending, it needs to have multiple accountability mechanisms.

Parliament is one of the most important and fundamental of those mechanisms. Therefore, it is wrong for us to be undermining the power of Parliament to provide effective oversight for government spending. I am not saying that the estimates process alone would have stopped Phoenix. Obviously money for Phoenix was appropriated under the estimates process. However, it is one of those important checks and balances, and if we allow each of those checks and balances to be undermined because no one check and balance is the be-all and end-all, eventually we are going to find ourselves in a situation where we do not have an appropriate number of checks and balances.

As I say, Parliament is one of the most important because it is the accountability process that gives the political and moral legitimacy for government to pursue certain measures. It is not a simple control. It is actually one of the most important controls because it is the one that confers legitimacy to government programs.

That is, in essence, the real problem with Treasury Board vote 40, or the budget implementation vote. It does not allow Parliament to do its job.

Getting more information is good. I do not think anybody here is opposed to the idea of having more information, or having the information presented in a more digestible way, where it is more obvious how what was announced in the budget lines up with what is being asked for in the estimates. The President of the Treasury Board is trying to defeat a straw man here, because nobody is saying that it is not better to have that information.

That information should not come at the cost of meaningful oversight, and it does not have to. That is what we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Frankly, it is what we heard from the President of the Treasury Board when he referred to the Australian model as the gold standard.

Australia does not have a huge omnibus central vote for all of the new budget initiatives. Australia has a Department of Finance and a treasury board secretariat that co-operate in advance of the budget being released. They communicate to the departments which initiatives on their departmental wish lists are going to get into the budget. Then they work with those departments to do the rigorous costing process and to run those programs through treasury board before the budget is announced. That allows them to table their main estimates at the same time as the budget without asking Parliament to sacrifice its power of oversight, without telling parliamentarians that they cannot answer questions about how to spend the money because they have not figured it out yet.

It is important to note that the model that the President of the Treasury Board is invoking as a justification for what he is doing does not support the idea of a central budget vote. It is something very different.

It is lamentable that the President of the Treasury Board did not get buy-in from his colleagues in government in order to be able to accomplish that feat. I recognize that cultural change within an organization is not easy but it is incumbent upon the minister to get that job done within government. For him to impose a lack of accountability on Parliament and to undermine the work of parliamentarians in terms of holding the government to account with respect to the government's financial plan is wrong. It is not the place of the executive to undermine the authority of this place with respect to financial matters.

That is a major problem. I cannot stress enough the frustration that I feel when we listen to members on that side talking about how we have to suffer this red herring about coordinating the two documents. There were lots of ways that the budget and the estimates could have been better coordinated in terms of the information and cross-referencing of that information without asking parliamentarians not to do their job.

Another issue that deserves to be addressed is the idea of online reporting. I am not opposed to it but I do have a problem with its being a substitute for parliamentarians receiving information in the proper way in this place and having that information tabled in this place.

We all know, without accusing the government of the day of doing anything like this, that some governments are more unscrupulous than others and online information can be changed. When we get official documents in this place they are in a form that is not alterable. If it is published and tabled in the House of Commons, it exists in a particular form and it is public. While a website is public, the information on it can be changed and changed in a way that does not record the fact that it has been changed. It can appear one way one day, and another way on another day.

That is why there is a certain permanency to the documents that are here and that is important. It is a reason why parliamentarians should not be quick to accept promises of online publication as a substitute for documents duly tabled here in the House of Commons.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government strongly believes in increasing transparency in government spending here in Parliament.

I hear some of my colleagues doubting what I am saying, but let me quote how former finance officials, Peter DeVries and Scott Clark, described the criticism of the budget implementation vote. They called it unwarranted. I will share three things they said about the budget implementation vote. First, they said it is “a more comprehensive reconciliation between the budget spending proposals and the estimates”. That is what this legislation would now do. Second, they said that there are “sufficient controls to ensure that this Vote cannot be used as a slush fund”. Third, they said that this gives parliamentarians, all of the members here in the House, “more information than in the past”.

I am proud of this. Many parliamentarians are proud of these initiatives and efforts toward increasing transparency and accountability. I would ask the hon. member, who follows this issue very closely, what he has to say about the thoughts of these former senior mandarins and public servants at Finance Canada.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say they spoke like true mandarins. One of the jobs of parliamentarians is to hold the government to account and it does not come as a surprise to me, and I say this without any disrespect to their careers or talent, that people who came up through government would be very trusting of government to look over its own shoulder and police itself. That is not our job in this place and I humbly submit to the member that if that is the job he wants, he is welcome to join the public service. However, in this place, it is our job to keep an eye on the government to make sure it lives up to what it says it is going to do, and we cannot do that if it does not tell us what it is planning to do with the money before we approve the funds. Finding out about it after does not work.

Let us say I am renovating my house. My contractor tells me what it is going to cost for a new kitchen, and I say, okay, and give him the money. If he says he is going to build me a kitchen and when it is done, he will show me the receipts and I will see then how it looks, I am going to say, hold on. I want input. I want to know what kind of flooring he is going to put in. I want to know what kinds of cabinets he is going to put in. I want to know whether it will have a dishwasher. Those are all things that I, as the customer, want to know and have a right to ask. I will not approve the cost for a kitchen renovation and find out it looks nothing like what I thought I was signing up for. That is the model of this budget implementation vote and it does not make sense from the point of view of financial accountability.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for his excellent speech and his work fighting the Liberal slush fund.

One of the main problems with this slush fund, which has been pointed out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is that not one penny of that $7.4 billion shows up in the departmental plans of the government, not one penny. I am going to read what the departmental plans are for. They describe departmental priorities, strategic outcomes, programs, expected results, and associated revenue. It lists expected results and outcomes, so we will not see the expected outcomes of one penny of the $7.4 billion.

I am going to give a perfect example of that. In vote 40, there is $102 million to provide clean and safe drinking water on reserve. I agree 100% that it is needed. The Library of Parliament just put out a report saying that 35 more reserves requiring boil water advisories have been added since the government took over. It has reduced some, but added 35. The issue is that there is $100 million in this slush fund, but not one penny of it is shown in the departmental plan. There is no transparency shown by the government as to how it is going to spend that money or provide clean and safe drinking water for the reserves.

I would ask my colleague if he believes this shows accountability or transparency on behalf of the government for this slush fund.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the issue of departmental plans. This spending was not appearing in departmental plans. It undermined the study of the estimates process and was not in keeping with the procedure and practice of this place. I felt this was so serious that I raised a point of order to that effect. The Speaker ruled and I will not comment on his ruling. However, it is an important issue. Departmental plans are supposed to be the place we go to understand what government does in its spending and what it plans to do, and to hold it to account.

Departmental plans are part 3 of the estimates. They are a formal document. They are meant to provide, in a contained document, both the funding requests and what government plans to do with the money. Now, by having this central vote, we have all this other information hanging out there that parliamentarians do not see as part of the ordinary process of studying the estimates. Hence we saw a lot of confusion. Things that should have been asked at other committees were not. They were at our committee, OGGO, instead. Then we had the kind of circus of a meeting with 12 to 14 different officials from many departments trying to talk to one committee about it.

Not having this information in the departmental plans, even in the short term, has created a lot of confusion about how to study this and come to an accurate judgment about whether the numbers in the estimates make sense. In the long term, it creates a problem as well by having that information housed outside of the normal departmental plans.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is great that we finally have a government that has recognized that things need to change at times. I remember hearing that argument when I was in opposition in the Manitoba legislature. The New Democrats reduced the hours of estimates from 240 to 120. They argued that we should take into consideration technology and the different types of tools that were there.

If we look at that, opposition members, and all members, of the chamber have a very important role. All sorts of tools over the years have been expanded upon. ATIP, or access to information, is a great example of that. We have Order Paper questions. We have a parliamentary budget officer. We have a national auditor general. We have the Internet, which has really revolutionized, in many ways, access to information.

Would my friend not agree that when we look at making changes, we have to take into consideration the advancement of society? We have seen significant changes. There is more information out there for individuals in the public to see how government spends their money. Would the member not agree that technology quite often changes the way we do things?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member suggested that we should have somewhere between 220 and 240 hours at committee with ministers to examine the estimates, and I wholeheartedly agree with that suggestion.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague is reading a classic of Quebec literature set on Île d'Orléans, I will ask my question in French.

I very much respect his knowledge of parliamentary procedure. I find his questions very interesting. Unfortunately, all I heard was the usual Liberal arrogance from the President of the Treasury Board, who casually told the member to just Google the information. Is this kind of royal arrogance not typical of this government?

The President of the Treasury Board essentially just told us to use technology to access the information. They are using modern technology as an excuse to avoid giving parliamentarians the information they need to do their jobs. We certainly must not bother his royal highness across the way.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

This initiative is driven by a deep sense of arrogance. It will not work. An initiative like this only works if we believe that opposition members do not have the right to question a majority government. It only works if we think that the government is competent enough and that its position cannot be called into question because it listened to what people had to say.

That is how the government is justifying spending money before informing Parliament. The Liberals must be really arrogant to think that that is enough and that they can ignore the House procedures that have been in place for 150 years. Canadians do not like that attitude. They want better accountability when the government spends their money.

Draft Appropriation Bill—Main Estimates, 2018-19—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for Edmonton West regarding the form of the appropriation bill to be considered later today.

I thank the hon. member for having raised this point, as well as the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the hon. chief opposition whip, and the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona for their interventions.

The hon. member for Edmonton West argued that certain provisions of the supply bill are not properly aligned with the content of the main estimates transmitted to the House by Her Excellency on April 16, 2018. More specifically, he was concerned that the wording of vote 40 under Treasury Board Secretariat, the budget implementation vote, contains new elements not originally found in the main estimates. He felt that this was inappropriate, as this language had not been considered by the standing committee and will not be concurred in by the House when it votes on the estimates later today. By modifying the language found in the bill, he felt the government was inventing new authority and purposes other than what had been communicated to the House by Her Excellency when the Estimates were presented.

The hon. parliamentary secretary noted that the Standing Orders require that the appropriation bill be based on the estimates. He noted that this language is similar to that found in Standing Order 83(4) regarding bills based on ways and means motions. In his mind, there was no doubt that the appropriation bill was based on the main estimates.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona argued that each item in the main estimates contains an amount and a destination, as described in the vote wording. Since the vote wording lays out the purpose of the spending and the conditions governing the spending, he argued that the government could only change it through the supplementary estimates or by new legislation. He did not feel the government had the prerogative to change the form of its request, especially after it had already been reviewed and approved by committee.

Standing Order 81(21) provides as follows:

The adoption of any motion to concur in any estimate or estimates shall be an Order of the House to bring in a bill or bills based thereon.

This provision is particularly significant given the way the House considers supply. The main estimates lay out the government’s spending plans. They are first tabled and then studied by committees over a period of several weeks. They contain an annex with the proposed items to be included in the schedule to the appropriation act. The supply bill is, by rule, considered at all stages in a single sitting, generally without debate or possibility of amendment. Such a process only makes sense if the supply bill is closely aligned with the main estimates. Indeed, the practice of distributing the supply bill at the beginning of the final allotted day, rather than when the bill is read a first time, developed, in part, because it is based on the main estimates. Similarly, the practice of allowing a member of the official opposition to ask, during the committee of the whole proceedings, if the bill is in the usual form, is yet another opportunity to reassure the House that there are no unexpected surprises in the bill

The essential question, then, is what is meant by the words “based thereon”. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, similar phrasing is used in Standing Order 83(4) regarding bills based on ways and means motions. While the chief opposition whip argued that this is not an appropriate comparison, I note that in both cases a motion must first be concurred in before a bill based thereon can be introduced. In one case, it is a motion to concur in the estimates, while in the other, it is concurrence in the ways and means motion.

Speaker Jerome, in a ruling interpreting what is now Standing Order 83(4), said at pages 224 and 225 of the Journals of December 18, 1974:

It must be assumed that if it was intended that the bills be required to be identical to the motion, the rule would say so.

He added:

Obviously, the most desirable practice is for the bill to adhere strictly to the provisions of the motion, and departures, if any, ought to be the subject of the strictest interpretation.

In that case, he noted that the rate and incidence of a tax, in the ways and means motion and the associated bill, were the same and that none of the provisions of the bill appeared to extend beyond what was in the ways and means motion.

I believe that these precedents are instructive to the case before us today. The difference between the wording of vote 40 as found in the main estimates and that found in the appropriation bill, is the addition of the words, “…set out under that department or other organization’s name in that Annex, in an amount that does not exceed the amount set out opposite that initiative in that Annex.” The amount of the vote is the same. The purposes of the vote are the same. The additional wording imposes certain conditions to the funding.

While I agree with the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona that the government does not have a wide-ranging prerogative to modify the terms and conditions of the proposed spending, in this case, I note that the new language appears to be consistent with the information provided elsewhere in the main estimates. For example, the description of vote 40 found at part II, page 261 of the main estimates indicates that it is for measures approved and identified in Table A2.11 of the budget, measures which are essentially reproduced in the annex of the main estimates for the present fiscal year. I have some difficulty concluding, then, that the bill is not based on the main estimates.

Therefore, in the present circumstances, I am prepared to find that the bill is properly before the House. Of course, to echo the words of Speaker Jerome, it would be most desirable that the bill adhere as strictly as possible to the main estimates. Were the variation more significant, the Chair’s conclusion could very well be different.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline Agency

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this time to speak on this particular issue today. I know we have a long evening ahead of us, but if members can bear with me for a few moments, I will bring forward my thoughts and some of my findings based on my experience and on my work in my riding.

I will be sharing my time with the able and honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, a beautiful riding just to the east of us here.

I am proud to stand today and talk about our government's plan to put people first and ensure equality and fairness for all Canadians. We know that providing Canadians with the opportunity to realize their full potential is not just the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do for our economy. By investing to create these opportunities for all Canadians, in all their diversity, we are instilling confidence and reinforcing the foundation for a stronger middle class and a growing economy for the benefit of all.

I would like to spend a few minutes outlining the key elements of that plan, which are included in the supply bill before us today.

It is about a stronger economy that benefits all Canadians. A confident, growing middle class is driving economic growth, creating new jobs and more opportunities to succeed. Our plan is working, because Canadians are working.

Over the last two years, Canadians have worked hard to grow our economy, creating 60% more jobs than the previous Conservative government over the same time period and driving the unemployment rate down to a 40-year low. Middle-class Canadians are now feeling more optimistic about their future, whether their plan is to pay down debt, save for a first home, go back to school to train for a new job, or ease their way into retirement.

In my riding, the average age is fairly high. The issue of those in the middle class transitioning into their senior years is, of course, a very important one, which we find addressed in the bill as well.

The very first thing we did as a government was to raise taxes on the top 1% so that we could lower them for the middle class. Also, through the Canada child benefit, we increased support for nine out of 10 families, putting more money, tax-free, into the pockets of parents for them to spend on things they need. That means more money for books, skating lessons, or warm clothes for winter. These are important achievements for the middle class and the people working hard to join it.

We know there is still hard work ahead of us before we meet our full potential, and there are challenges that must be overcome. We also know that some of our greatest challenges present the greatest opportunities. In the 150-year existence of our country, we certainly know that to be true.

On the international stage, we are members of the G7, and we punch way above our weight, whether it is the strength of our economy or the strength of the exports that we push around the world.

By creating these opportunities, the government is taking action through budget 2018 to make sure that the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people.

We are creating opportunities that draw strength from our diversity to build a country where every Canadian has a real and fair chance to work, to contribute to our economy, and to succeed. That includes Canada's talented, ambitious, and hard-working women. That is why in budget 2018 we focused on issues such as promoting equal parenting for new families, with a proposed new El parental sharing benefit, and tackling the gender wage gap. In short, it is fundamental to a strong and growing middle class. By building on this understanding, the government, through budget 2018, takes us further than ever before toward a stronger Canada.

I would like to talk in detail about one of the things we have been working on for quite some time, first as a party in opposition and now in government.

We know that Canadians are working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families. Low-income Canadians are sometimes working two or three jobs so that they can join the middle class and give their children and grandchildren a better chance at success. Like all Canadians, they deserve to have their hard work rewarded with greater opportunities and a fair chance at success.

That is why, in budget 2018, we introduced the new Canada workers benefit, a new tax benefit that would put more money into the pockets of low-income workers. The new Canada workers benefit builds on the former working income tax benefit, or WITB, to give even more people greater financial benefits from working. The government is also ensuring that, starting in 2019, every tax filer who could benefit from the new CWB will benefit, by proposing changes that would allow the Canada Revenue Agency to automatically determine eligibility for those who do not make a claim.

We have also enhanced access to the Canada child benefit, which we have talked about quite a bit here simply because we are quite proud of what we have done over the last little while. It is a tax-free benefit, especially for those with young families. We fought a gruelling campaign over this issue. We came out on the successful side, promising to do just this, and we are delivering it after two years. Like the Canada workers benefit, the Canada child benefit, or CCB, is a cornerstone in our plan to strengthen the middle class.

We recognize that indigenous communities, in particular remote and northern indigenous communities, face distinct barriers to accessing federal benefits such as the CCB. That is why, in budget 2018, we expanded efforts to reach out to indigenous communities and to conduct pilot outreach activities for urban indigenous communities as well.

I recall that in the last Parliament we sat in front of many stakeholders in the indigenous community and first nations. In Newfoundland and Labrador, I have the only reserve on the island, which is Conne River, or Miawpukek. I remember some of them talking about their concerns for their brothers and sisters who were in urban areas yet full members of their own reserve. They were deeply concerned about the fact that a lot of first nations people living in larger centres were not able to access some of the government funding and programs that were available. That became a priority for many of us, me included, not just about first nations, but all indigenous people in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in Labrador.

These efforts would ensure that indigenous people are better able to access the full range of federal social benefits, including the Canada child benefit, putting money into the pockets of those who are unable to afford basic goods for young children. That is what we built our campaign around.

In closing, these investments in budget 2018, included in the supply bill before us today, recognize that new opportunities and equality are at the heart of Canada's future economic success. Fairness demands equality, and the prosperity of all Canadians depends on it. Certainly in an area such as my own, where the unemployment rate is high, we seek out ways so that people can re-educate themselves. We seek out ways by which they can find other forms of income by retraining and other methods.

For seniors, we want to provide a blanket security that provides them with a living and with services so they can continue to enjoy their moments as they slip into their senior years.

By promoting equality, our government will help create long-term prosperity for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

On the other issues we have talked about in the House, both in the past and now as we lead up to this prosperity of a burgeoning middle class and low unemployment rates, I would say that it is best for us not just to create the jobs by which these people would have income relief available to them in case of unexpected job loss, but also to create a just society they can live in.

One of the programs I am very proud of is the new horizons for seniors program. It is not a recent program; it has been around since the early 2000s. I bring up this program because it is an investment in the social well-being of our seniors.

I recently returned from a trip regarding the OECD. Many countries were fascinated by the new horizons program, because it provides a social benefit to seniors that they have not seen before. Many countries get deeply concerned about financial well-being, and it is true that this is the cornerstone, but to build upon that for our seniors is very important. There are other programs associated with it, also for the middle class. That is why we are very proud of the Canada child benefit.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Liberals have decided to continue our Conservative plan, the new horizons for seniors program. It has been very beneficial. In my riding, many seniors have benefited from it and continue to do so.

My question has to do with people who are submitting their income taxes. I believe he referred to a special program for low-income individuals, wherein they were able to submit their income taxes by calling a 1-800 number and just plugging in the numbers as they go along. We had feedback from this process. Individuals who may not be scholars when it comes to numbers and accounting to begin with can make mistakes when punching in numbers on the phone, and they are not receiving anything in paper. It is just a matter of going through the process and reporting their income tax using a phone tree in order to continue their child benefits through the government.

I am wondering if the member opposite knows of any way these people can be helped, especially when they make a mistake and end up getting nothing after going through this phone tree program?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in many cases I find the same instances. What happens is that a lot of people make mistakes and get caught in a system where they fall through the cracks. Then they come to us and it becomes a longer process for them to receive their refund.

The paper issue was also a big one, which we returned to in many cases. People want to have the paper return instead of just going online. I am from a rural riding, and some communities do not even have high-speed Internet. That makes it even worse.

Connect to innovate is a program we invested in just a short time ago, which is trying to bridge that gap. I hope that down the road we can bridge that gap for low-income earners as well.

In the meantime, for the 1-800 number, what happens is that we bring them into our office and we do it in front of them on the computer if need be. The member is right. That should be rectified. I do not know of any particular instance, and due to privacy laws I cannot talk about it.

The final point I would like to make is that the new horizons for seniors program was developed, implemented, and put in the House, and in this country, by former prime minister Paul Martin.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to one of the general themes of tonight's debate, which has to do with the budget implementation vote and what that means for parliamentary accountability for government with respect to its spending.

I offered up a hyperbolic example earlier today, imagining some of the different ways the government might say it is strengthening the Canada Border Services Agency with the $54 million that is in vote 40. I suggested that it would matter to parliamentarians whether the government was deciding to hire more officers to patrol the border, to buy guns, or to build a wall. It is reasonable for parliamentarians to ask that question.

However, a slightly less hyperbolic example that gets at the same thing is that, in these estimates, the Privy Council Office has asked for about $750,000 to support a new federal leaders' election debate process. The consortium that has sometimes done the debates in the past has said that it usually costs about $250,000 to do the debates for an election, so it could do at least three elections worth of debates for $750,000. The government is projecting that it may spend $5 million next year, and we do not know if that money is for consultation, or to set up an office. We do not know what that money is for, and the PCO has said it does not know what it is for, either.

Does the member think it is acceptable for parliamentarians to be approving funding when we have no idea how the government would decide to support the goals it has stated for the funds?